Dutch court weighs Shell’s 45% climate order

The Dutch Supreme Court heard oral arguments on 22 May in Milieudefensie v. Shell, the case that could define whether judges anywhere in Europe can order a company to cut its carbon emissions by a specific amount. Courts across five European jurisdictions have independently confirmed that fossil fuel companies bear a legal duty to address climate change. Not one has translated that duty into a binding target.

The order that started it all

In 2021, a district court in The Hague ordered Shell to reduce its worldwide CO₂ emissions, including indirect emissions from customers burning its fuel, by 45% by 2030. The order rested on the unwritten duty of care in Dutch civil law (Article 6:162 of the Dutch Civil Code). No court anywhere had imposed a concrete climate target on a corporation before.

In November 2024, the Court of Appeal overturned the order. The appeals judges confirmed Shell's climate duty of care but ruled that no scientific consensus supports assigning a specific reduction percentage to a single company. Ordering Shell alone to cut sales would simply shift production to competitors, the court found. The Hoge Raad (the Dutch Supreme Court, which reviews only whether lower courts applied the law correctly) will issue an advisory opinion by late 2026 and a final ruling in early 2027.

Courts across Europe accept the duty, then stop short

The Dutch impasse is part of a wider pattern. In Germany, the Higher Regional Court of Hamm confirmed in May 2025 that energy company RWE can in principle be held liable for climate harm thousands of kilometres away, then dismissed the specific claim on the facts. In France, courts will rule on 25 June whether TotalEnergies must align its production strategy with the Paris Agreement under France's 2017 duty-of-vigilance law, following a trial that began in February 2026. Courts in Italy and Switzerland have similarly accepted jurisdiction over corporate climate cases (Lexxion, Morgan Lewis) without imposing concrete orders.

While courts are accepting that companies owe a climate duty, none have been willing to set a concrete emissions target.

These cases would carry less weight if EU legislation provided a framework. The Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD, the EU's 2024 law requiring large companies to address environmental harm in their supply chains) was severely weakened in February 2026. Its mandatory climate transition plan was deleted. Civil liability rules were removed. The scope was narrowed to companies with over 5,000 employees and €1.5 billion in turnover, covering fewer than 1,000 firms across the EU. With the directive hollowed out, enforcement falls entirely to national courts.

What Shell does while it litigates

Shell argues that it takes climate seriously and that courts should not micromanage corporate strategy. Its spending suggests different priorities. In 2024, Shell spent roughly $12.7 billion on upstream oil and gas, $2.5 billion on renewables, and returned $22.5 billion to shareholders; its CEO publicly questioned the company's 2050 net-zero commitment in February 2026.

Milieudefensie (Friends of the Earth Netherlands), not waiting for the Supreme Court, filed a new lawsuit in April 2026 demanding Shell halt investment in new oil and gas fields. The shift in legal strategy is telling: away from emissions percentages and toward investment decisions directly.

What comes next

The TotalEnergies ruling on 25 June could arrive before the Dutch Supreme Court decides, potentially producing the first binding judicial order linking corporate production to climate targets. The LSE Grantham Research Institute counted 226 new climate cases filed globally in 2024, with corporate defendants growing as a share. Across all five jurisdictions, a legal duty to act on climate now exists on paper. What it actually requires a company to do remains undefined by any court or legislature.